While laws are written mainly to dictate peace, fairplay, and humanity but at some point logic must dictate the law.

I was watching the news the other day and the supreme court unanimously threw out a case that involved a man finding a fly in his bottled water. The court basically said it's simply a matter of life and it happens. However if it had been human waste or something of that nature, my guess is that it would have turned out a bit different.

The point being (as Bob states) there is a balance here between law and logistics. The law was built to protect creators and publishers from having their work stolen, or in other words, taken without proper reimbursement. It is not written to hamper life or detract from it. Can you imagine what a Judge would say if Alice Cooper took me to court because I was humming his music in public (if it even got that far).

I create dvd's all the time with published music on them.... but then they are for me and I already paid for the music that's on them... and I would imagine a Judge would agree. But if I sell those dvd's now I'm making money with some ones else's work and they deserve a cut. If I'm humming Alice Cooper tunes and making money as a direct result then Alice is probably due his fair share.

I think in the end, average people know why these laws exist and how far they can go with them. Whether they follow the law or not is a different story, but the point is that the logic in us all puts a balance on the extent of the law.

Bob,
I don't know how the rights issue is divided up in your country, however in the US a copyright is defined as:

" . . .

In other words, the viewing public does not have intrinsic rights that can somehow be limited after the fact according to the publisher's intent; rather, the only rights the public has are those specifically enumerated and granted at the owner's pleasure. You don't have the right to copy my song if I didn't tell you you can't; in fact it's quite the opposite: You only have the right to copy my song if I tell you that you can.

Thus, in the US, the analogy you posited between intellectual property ownership and physical property such as a car or cow is valid and not perverse. It's like someone saying they have a right to steal my cow unless I have already told them they can't. Now that's absurd.

Having dealt (successfully) with a huge UK publisher to obtain limited song rights, I suspect the division of rights between the owner and the public are somewhat similar to those in our country.

Thanks for your POV, though, it's always refreshing to hear others' thoughts.

Which part of the word "granted" do you not understand?
Who granted those rights?
I'm granted the right to a car licence too.
Is there any law that grants you ownership over your car or cow for a limited period of time?
No, there's common law that says if I steal a car or a cow I have to answer for my action.
If you still don't get it I'll dig out a copy of the request for comments documents for changes to Australian and UK copyright, no doubt soon to be gazzetted into law. The standard preamble says exactly this, the key is the word "granted" and yes they're changing what will be granted, now how can they do that?

Bob.

there's another important thing here: Federal copyright exists only when the work has been fixed in a tangible medium

making a video & releasing it to non-physical distributed mediums (IE youtube) isn't a tangible medium. Thus there's no federal copyright on any video's to anyone on youtube unless it's also on tape, DVD, etc (ie you took that short film you made & have the edited version on DVD, just your computer/youtube). I know lawyers & judges would most likely say otherwise, but that is a very specific wording there. If "tangible medium" was meant to include devices that could store information for an indefinite amount of time then our brains come in to play and anything you THINK about becomes copyrightable, even if it's never existed.

The more important point in the exact words that musicvid quotes is "exclusive". The rights granted are exclusive i.e. they're the only ones you have. This is signficant in this discussion.

I can rent, lease or loan my car to you. I cannot do that with my copyright. The only thing in common between my car and my copy right(s) is I can sell them.

It might seem redundant but still worth pointing out that I've never heard of copyright being stolen. That would require some degree of magic. If you wake up one morning to find your car stolen, it's gone. Someone else has it and you don't. If someone breaches your rights under copyright law do the notes vanish from your pages, does the tune get erased from your brain so you can no longer sing the song.

Also the rest of the law spends many pages and amendments limiting those exclusive rights. Anyone can sing your song, anyone can record it for nothing more than a fixed fee, you cannot stop them. It grants other rights to the rest of us such as fair use, it permits libraries to make copies.

And in some cases copyright works even after they're sold will make money for the originator if their value increases, don't get that with a car. Australia will change our laws to align with much of the world. If a painting is sold at auction the painter gets a percentage each time. One can easily see why this is being legislated.

None of what I'm saying is defending breach of copyright. What bugs me is when the wrong arguments are used. It's hard enough to explain the complexities of copyright to people, using wrong analogies clouds the waters badly, gets peoples backs up and fails to defend the rights of copyright owners. And to go back to where Musicvid was coming from, because this is something that's regulated then there's nothing inherently wrong in someone using the holes deliberate or otherwise. If you've got a beef with this, do the right thing and get the holes fixed for the good of all.

Bob.

Bob,
**So you're getting off on the wrong foot, you have no right of ownership once you publish a work. It's the rights of others that are limited for your benefit once you publish a work.**

This is what I was responding to. You are correct that as the owner, I am granted exclusive property rights under US copyright law. This means to the exclusion of other people, not other rights as you seem to presume. So, your assertions that others have some intrinsic rights to my work or that intellectual property ownership differs substantially from other property ownership is simply not true in this country.

However, I will keep the points you raised in mind and investigate them thoroughly should I find myself in a position to publish or release copyrighted work in Australia. And yes, with over three decades in the US and Canadian entertainment industry, I'm sure I get it.

To another poster's comment, the US copyright law was amended (in 1978 I believe) to include electronic, internet, and computer storage, transmission, access, and display as tangible media under the definitions.

Another example of how this works: If I choose to let you look at my cow, does that give you the right to take it if you like it? No. I could keep the cow, rent the cow, offer it for sale, hide the cow, butcher the cow, give it away, or invite you to bring your bull over for a romp in the hay. However, it's not your choice.

How does this common law example relate to US copyright law? Well, it's rather simple. I can publish and copyright a document and choose not to let you see it. (Please see and understand the difference between publishing and releasing a work. You've made this error twice in your previous posts.) And if I renew the copyright before it expires, I can substantially ensure that you will never see it in your lifetime. Now let's suppose that copyrighted document is a proprietary internal training manual for my company. If someone takes the manual, sells it to a competitor, or publishes it on the internet, or even threatens to do so, I do not have to prove that I told that person not to take or distribute my document without my permission in order to prevail in a court proceeding. Nor does the release of that document reduce or diminish my rights in any way. As the owner and publisher of the document, the rights to do so are exclusively mine, and not yours. So, stealing the copyright is not the issue, as you said is ridiculous. Stealing the protected work is what will get you into trouble, and plenty of it. This shouldn't be too hard to "get."

It seems from your last statement that you are advocating any means available to circumvent the rather routine notion of rights of property ownership.If that is the case, I suggest that you examine your motives, rather than anything that needs to be "fixed" in the law.

It seems from your last statement that you are advocating any means available to circumvent the rather routine notion of rights of ownership.

Exactly the opposite. I didn't earn the nickname "The Copyright Nazi" for nothing.
And yes your example of letting some look at your cow is entirely correct. Equating the theft or your cow to breach of your copyright isn't. A cow is real property, IP isn't.
As far as I'm aware you do not have to "copyright" a work. The grant of rights is automatic. Your rights to your work are also automatic. There is no procedure for you to copyright a work in this country or any other that I'm aware of and I can assure you if anyone was to breech your copyright in this country you'd have much the same recourse to legal action as you would in the USA. In some narrow circumstances those doing so could be subject to criminal charges.
There are some differences. I have a blanket mechanical copyright licence. Depending on how you distributed your work and if it was music, I offer a paid for service to format shift copyright works. I believe such a licence is not available in the USA.
Down here videographers can also get a blanket licence to sync music to vision under very specific conditions and distribute that video as a limited number of copies. This covers weddings and events such as school musicals.
If you came here to make a recording using work for hire singers or composers be warned, our laws are pretty strict on moral rights, moreso than in the USA I think. Even though you'd own the copyright to the work it does not extinguish the moral rights of those who did the paid for work and nor should it, credit where credit's due.
Also as far as I'm aware copyright is no longer renewable, even in the USA. Once the time limit is reached, it's gone and the work is in the public domain. I have an issue with how this works. When the copyright expires with it goes the moral rights, one has no obligation to respect the moral rights of the creator of a work once in the public domain and I find that wrong, certainly something I'd always respect.

Bob.

It depends on when your work was copyrighted and whether it was in its first or second term, but in most cases the renewal is automatic and extends for either the owner's lifetime plus fifty years or a seventy-five years total.

Other than that, I think your last post makes some reasonable points. I am familiar with blanket licenses and enjoy blanket performance rights (not mechanicals) by virtue of memberships with BMI and ASCAP.

Not sure what you mean by moral rights of the creator, but the right to be asked before someone else uses their creation would certainly qualify, right?

...copyright is no longer renewable, even in the USA. Once the time limit is reached, it's gone and the work is in the public domain.

In theory yes, in practice no. Walt Disney Corp. successfully persuaded lawmakers to see the benefit of extending the copyright period from so many years to the life of the author, then to the life of the author plus 70 years.

Note also that there is no fair use exemption for real property.

Moral rights refer to the right to attribution.
You might pay a composer a fee to write a work and musicians to perform it. Even though you own the copyright you cannot say you composed it or sung it according to their moral rights.
So in this case you ask the copyright owner for a licence to use the work he owns. If granted you should give him credit as the owner and those that did the 'creating' their credit too. It's one thing when dorks breach copyright on Youtube and the like, when they fail to give credit to whose work they're using is what really bugs me.

Bob.

**Note also that there is no fair use exemption for real property.**

I love that statement.

Wonder how that relates to retail developers snatching up your property under the guise of "eminent domain"?

I knew that it was changed to 70 years but isn't that a blanket change?
What I mean is it doesn't expire at say 50 years unless you renew it, you just get 70 years from the outset. Under an old system covering movies it did expire after I think 25 years and you had an option to extend it on payment of another fee.

Bob.

"It's one thing when dorks breach copyright on Youtube and the like, when they fail to give credit to whose work they're using is what really bugs me."

I had this experience when someone used one of my youtube videos (a religious cermony) and re-edited it to text and music. Now what they edited did not bother me but they never asked me permission and believe it or not they actually put there own name at the end of the video as the credits.

making a video & releasing it to non-physical distributed mediums (IE youtube) isn't a tangible medium. Thus there's no federal copyright on any video's to anyone on youtube unless it's also on tape, DVD, etc (ie you took that short film you made & have the edited version on DVD, just your computer/youtube). I know lawyers & judges would most likely say otherwise, but that is a very specific wording there. If "tangible medium" was meant to include devices that could store information for an indefinite amount of time then our brains come in to play and anything you THINK about becomes copyrightable, even if it's never existed.

I haven't read the entire thread, so please pardon me if this is a redundant post...

The above simply isn't correct at all.
The moment a concept is affixed to any medium which may be shared, retrieved, viewed, heard by more than one person in their head, it is "tangible." The moment you record video to a tapeless/HDD/P2/SxS/ DVD/whatever medium, it is copyrighted. The moment those scenes are edited together to create something else, whether it lives only on a hard drive, DVD, or tape as a digital medium, it's tangible. Content stored exclusively on YouTube is tangible. A hard drive is considered a tangible medium. A tangible medium can pretty well be summed up as anything "outside" of the human mind.
If you can see, touch, taste, smell, hear the idea, or if it can be shared with others in any form beyond verbal, it's tangible.

..and that's not only book law, it's also case law.

It's amazing how many people are looking for sneaky ways/loopholes to use other people's work.

I'm still glad to have the fair use exemption.

It's amazing how many people are looking for sneaky ways/loopholes to use other people's work.

That's what it's about.

However, when the soon-to-be-released Ideas In A Box software comes out, it will become a non-issue.

It's amazing how many people are looking for sneaky ways/loopholes to use other people's work.

All I can say from first hand knowledge is it's amazing how copyright owners can use sneaky loopholes to demand outrageous extra fees. If you ever do negotiate a deal to licence music be certain it doesn't limit the distribution medium or it could cost you dearly, in the case I was on the sidelines of, at least ten times the original fee.

Bob.

I'm tired of people characterizing "fair use" as a "sneaky loophole." Fair Use is an absolutely legitimate use of copyrighted materials to serve a broader public purpose, such as education, criticism or satire. Fair Use is an attempt to balance a copyright owner's ability to make money of their intellectual property against the right of free speech guaranteed in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Fair use is recognized by the United States Supreme Court, and by most copyright courts in other countries as well. Yes, it's legally tricky to navigate. But that doesn't mean that it's somehow illegal or immoral.

Finally, on the topic of property rights. The 4th amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from depriving citizens of their life, liberty or property without due process of law. However, there is no intrinisic right to own ANYTHING. Any private ownership rests entirely on a legal framework and specific grants of ownership established by the government. Even the most basic of property rights, land ownership, would not exist in the United States were it not for treaties and appropriations of the federal government with Native Americans, federal land grants to settlers under the Homestead Act, the Registered Land Survey and local registers of deeds in every county across the country.

Intellectual property rights, which are far less tangible than land ownership (why do you think they call it "real" estate?), depend even more heavily on grants of ownership from the government. Consequently, the government has every right to determine the extent of, nature of, duration of, and exceptions to, grants of ownership of intellectual property. The government has an obligation not only to protect private individual's rights to make money off their ideas, but also to protect the rights of others to comment, critique or make fun of those ideas, and to protect the public domain of common knowledge that is the basis for any scientific or cultural advancement.

All I can say from first hand knowledge is it's amazing how copyright owners can use sneaky loopholes to demand outrageous extra fees.

For better or for worse, that is their right.

And particularly in the case of licensing music for video & film, I think it often runs counter to the copyright holders maximizing their income.

I do however think that music licensing will change instantly once the copyright holders discover that the world has changed, and that they can make more money than before, through a streamlined licensing process.